"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."
As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this issue.
On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also choose to live under their rules.
On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier? Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started? If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at fault.
I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.
Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No permit? That is tragic.
Some localities may also require a demolition permit. There must be a paper trail somewhere :(
Two planes have crashed into homes in N Las Vegas in past few weeks. Maybe they're in an HOA...
The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific issue - the HOA's rules
The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks may be fine as far as the city is concerned.
However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid permit from the city.
The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within weeks of completion before this surfaced?
HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any municipality without basic code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require paperwork to get an allowance to extend it.
Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have second homes far away. Or they ignored it until someone complained. :o) The tough part is that construction is basic in HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an issue comes up. I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use unfortunate circumstances to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with a handicap who got a two- story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign regs, etc, etc.
If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any longer.
Seems far fetched, but don't be surprised!
As long as the HOA code meets or exceeds local code, it takes preference. The problem probably wasn't coded items but appearance only. There's no way this house could have been built without the HOA stepping in sooner and stopping the process till they approved the plans. We will find out that there is much more to the story than has been told. If this HOA was like
99.9 percent of all HOA's, they would have come down on this homeowner after the first brick was laid incorrectly.
Yeah, that's what I meant - stricter. In other words, no need for a setback extender or square footage variance as far as the city was concerned, but the HOA increased setback distances by a foot, so he was in violation of HOA rules. I think we're on the same page here.
Yep, that's what I meant with my pick-up truck scenario.
BTW I had an interesting setback situation with my first house.
I got a mortgage approved by Bank A prior to closing after providing a survey map to the lender. There were no setback issues mentioned.
A year later, we tried to re-financed with Bank B and they said we needed a signed form stating that no one had complained about our setback "violation" in the past 18 months. It turns out that one corner the house was about 6 inches inside the required setback.
Bank B was aware that we had only been in the house for 12 months and wouldn't accept my signature for the 18 month time period. They told me to go find the prior owner and get his signature on the form. Luckily, I knew how to contact him and while he was surprised, he was more than willing to help out.
Here's the rediculous part of the situation:
They wouldn't accept my signature because I wasn't living in the house for the full 18 months, yet they accepted the prior owner's signature even though he hadn't been there for the past 12 months! They didn't want a form from him for the period he lived there *and* a form from me for the period I lived there, they just wanted a form from whoever lived in the house on the day that was 18 months prior to the closing, stating that no one had complained in 18 months.
Idiots.
The tax man has to access the property, before move in (?). That's when the new house falls under the claws of and HOA.
Highly doubtful -- the CC&Rs/deed restrictions that enable the HOA to have a say in the first place are virtually always part of the title to the *land* parcel itself, and thus apply to anything done or built on that land.
If you picked up and moved a house that was on land subject to an HOA to a new non-HOA property, the HOA wouldn't have a say in that house (but they could, of course, require that an exact replica be rebuilt on the original land :-)
Josh
There definitely has to be more to this story -- any CC&Rs that specify that the HOA that has control over "architecture changes" has some sort of approval process to go through with timelines specified. In our association, we have 30 days to approve or deny a submitted plan (there's a separate committee that reports to the board for this), or it's automatically considered approved. I can't imagine they would have considered this large of an application without detailed plans/lot maps/etc. So, what happened?
1) The plans were approved (perhaps by default), and now the HOA realizes it misapplied some of it's internal rules/guidelines. HOA at fault. 2) The plans were denied and the homeowner proceeded anyway, or the homeowner simply didn't bother to submit an application, either out of ignorance (but you really really need to know what kinds of restrictions you agreed to when you signed the title documents), or malice (and I include "hoping to play the sympathy card" in that). 3) The plans changed (homeowner said "I'm going to rebuild the same house" and then changed his mind) and weren't resubmitted. See #2Look, I can see hoping an HOA will look the other way if I put up a new outdoor light fixture, change the landscaping a bit, etc, but the risk of having to undo is pretty small; I just can't imagine building a whole house without making absolutely sure I was in compliance with the rules of all legally interested parties (zoning, building codes, insurance company, mortgage company, HOA, etc) and had written proof of that.
I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.
Josh
HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's obviously going to be needing one regardless.
Like several others have told you, HOA is linked to the land, not what is built on it. Short of rising up and overthrowing/disbanding the HOA, only escape is to sell the property. And yes, they all work like that.
-- aem sends....
Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't have changed a thing around here.
Sorry, I'm not buying that answer until the Fat Lady sings and the judge rules. I think he originally signed an agreement that had stipulations about what he could do to a house that no longer exists. It's an opening, and a good lawyer can use it, as I'm sure they will.
It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court, but I think there may be plenty to argue about. HOA's are not invincible, omniscient or omnipotent. They would like you to think that they are, so they always adopt the attitude of intimidation. Not everybody scares that easy.
Why the $%% does anyone buy a home in a HOA community? If they couldnt sell houses they would stop creating these monstrosities. Any time I see HOA I say nothanks ad keep on going.
On Wed 10 Sep 2008 04:59:25p, told us...
I had a humorous but exasperating experience with an HOA years ago, and I happened to be an HOA board member. I had a very traditional copper weathervane installed on our brick chimney. Within a week I received a letter signed by the board president stating that I had to remove it. I knew that there was nothing in our bylaws restricing or forbidding such an addition. I wrote a polite letter in reply stating that fact and adding that I would not remove it. Meanwhile, I re-read the bylaws with a fine- toothed comb to determine exactly what was addressed and what was clearly permissible. Within days the board called a meeting to discuss the matter. When a vote was taken, everyone else on the board voted to have the weathervane removed, but I voted to keep it. I also pointed out that one particular item was specifically addressed in the bylaws, the use of a rooftop or chimney mounted TV antenna or radio antenna. It stipulated that the height of the mast could not exceed 25 feet and the width of the antenna could not exceed 6 feet. They scoffed at any similarity to my situation. They also stated that every home in the development was wired for cable TV and that no one had an antenna, still insisting that the weathervane had to come down. I said fine, I will happily remove it on the same day that I install a 25 foot high TV antenna that was 6 feet wide. At the same meeting, I resigned my position on the board. The weathervane was installed in 1982 and is still in place.
I'm glad you were able to read what he agreed to because the rest of us are just speculating. I'm guessing the property, not the house alone, is covered under the agreement. But if you saw the agreement and all the terms perhaps you can declare it null and void.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.